Thoughts on the developing McGahn story?

[PhyloeBedoe]

I'm surprised this hasn't been a discussion here yet. (And sorry if I missed it here elsewhere...)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

[Sope Creek]

I'm surprised this hasn't been a discussion here yet. (And sorry if I missed it here elsewhere...)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I haven't followed it at all, but I don't think McGahn has thrown Trump under a bus . . . and in fact I'd be terribly surprised if McGahn's participation hasn't been extremely helpful in getting Trump a better outcome than he otherwise might have if McGahn had not actively participated.

 

[Stuffshot]

I'm surprised this hasn't been a discussion here yet. (And sorry if I missed it here elsewhere...)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

It apparently doesn't matter since neither Rookie Trump nor Giuliani have slandered McGahn or revoked his security clearance.

 

[UncleMark]

I haven't followed it at all, but I don't think McGahn has thrown Trump under a bus . . . and in fact I'd be terribly surprised if McGahn's participation hasn't been extremely helpful in getting Trump a better outcome than he otherwise might have if McGahn had not actively participated.

I don't think there's any story to that story. It's been known he's been speaking with Mueller, as have many others. The only things that are close to being interesting is the "Dean" angle, and him getting out ahead of things so he doesn't get blamed for Trump's obstruction.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I'm surprised this hasn't been a discussion here yet. (And sorry if I missed it here elsewhere...)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Deep state...fake news...Clinton

 

[Standard Issue]

Would Mueller's team sit for multiple sessions totalling thirty hours for nothing useful? I wouldn't think that would be comforting for t-rump or his traveling lawyer. Or am applying my version of logic to something that operates in a totally different fashion.

Or maybe I don't grasp the, uh, arhgh, dammit NUANCES.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Nope not til he’s gone. How about you guys getting some morals, values, and ethics.

Seems like a hit a nerve....

Nope not a bit. I know there’s people like you out there, sadly. Fortunately there are even more people with both an education and a sense of morality. The goal is to get these people to the polls in November.

 

[UncleMark]

Would Mueller's team sit for multiple sessions totalling thirty hours for nothing useful? I wouldn't think that would be comforting for t-rump or his traveling lawyer.

What I've read says there were "at least" three sessions totaling thirty hours. That strikes me as odd. If it's only three, that would be ten hours apiece on average. Sounds more like a grilling, not a voluntary interview. If it's more, then why the "at least three" phrasing. Couldn't they get two or more sources to say there were four or more?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html

Edit to add

Yikes!

Trump Lawyers’ Sudden Realization: They Don’t Know What Don McGahn Told Mueller’s Team

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/us/politics/don-mcgahn-trump-mueller.html

The article set off a scramble on Saturday among Mr. Trump’s lawyers and advisers. The president, sequestered at his private golf club in Bedminster, N.J., solicited opinions from a small group of advisers on the possible repercussions from the article. The president ordered Mr. Giuliani to tell reporters that the article was wrong, but Mr. Giuliani did not go that far in his television appearances.​

 

[cosmickid]

I'm surprised this hasn't been a discussion here yet. (And sorry if I missed it here elsewhere...)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I think it could be huge,and so does John Dean. Remember, Trump tried to get McGahn to fire Mueller. And 30 hrs over 3 separate sessions indicates he had info they were interested in...

How about Ridiculous Rudy's claim that "truth is NOT truth"? He and Trump are the perfect pair- Dirty Rotten Scoundrels...

Rudy tried to claim the truth was subjective, and reduce it to a he said/she said reality.But sometimes lies are beyond obvious. Like today when Rudy claimed that the attendees at the Trump Tower meeting didn't know Natalia Veselnitskaya was Russian, much less connected to the Russian Govt. Rudy said all they knew was that she had a "Russian-sounding name"...

Poor Rudy- he obviously forgot that Don Jr had previously released the email chain, which exposes Rudy's bluster as an outright lie.Of course that happened last year, so maybe in the midst of Rudy's dementia that bit of short term memory failed him...

Here's some of Don Jr's correspondence regarding the proposed meeting...


"On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Don

Hope all is well

Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday.

I believe you are aware of the meeting - and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?

I assume it would be at your office.

Best

Rob Goldstone

On Jun 7, 2016, at 18:14, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

Great. It will likely be Paul Manafort (campaign boss) my brother in law and me. 725 Fifth Ave 25th floor."

Yeah Rudy- it's obvious Don Jr and his crew didn't know that she was a Russian Attorney...


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/politics/donald-trump-jr-full-emails/

 

[sglowrider]

I think it could be huge,and so does John Dean. Remember, Trump tried to get McGahn to fire Mueller. And 30 hrs over 3 separate sessions indicates he had info they were interested in...

How about Ridiculous Rudy's claim that "truth is NOT truth"? He and Trump are the perfect pair- Dirty Rotten Scoundrels...

Rudy tried to claim the truth was subjective, and reduce it to a he said/she said reality.But sometimes lies are beyond obvious. Like today when Rudy claimed that the attendees at the Trump Tower meeting didn't know Natalia Veselnitskaya was Russian, much less connected to the Russian Govt. Rudy said all they knew was that she had a "Russian-sounding name"...

Poor Rudy- he obviously forgot that Don Jr had previously released the email chain, which exposes Rudy's bluster as an outright lie.Of course that happened last year, so maybe in the midst of Rudy's dementia that bit of short term memory failed him...

Here's some of Don Jr's correspondence regarding the proposed meeting...


"On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Don

Hope all is well

Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday.

I believe you are aware of the meeting - and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?

I assume it would be at your office.

Best

Rob Goldstone

On Jun 7, 2016, at 18:14, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

Great. It will likely be Paul Manafort (campaign boss) my brother in law and me. 725 Fifth Ave 25th floor."

Yeah Rudy- it's obvious Don Jr and his crew didn't know that she was a Russian Attorney...


http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/politics/donald-trump-jr-full-emails/

You should have inserted Rudy's clip. It is doing a disservice to all who would enjoy a moment of levity on a Sunday evening or Monday morning in my case.

Rudy is comedy gold.

He has been going on about the Perjury trap? Isn't that an oxymoron? The whole point of going under oath is to get the truth or punish the liars is it?

"Look, the president lies and we all know it so it's not fair to make him testify under oath."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You should have inserted Rudy's clip. It is doing a disservice to all who would enjoy a moment of levity on a Sunday evening or Monday morning in my case.

View embedded media

Rudy is comedy gold.

He has been going on about the Perjury trap? Isn't that an oxymoron? The whole point of going under oath is to get the truth or punish the liars is it?

"Truth" is not a simple concept in these matters. Todd seems to think truth is as simple as asking your child if he spilled the milk. Rudy G has it exactly right. Every lawyer would be concerned about a perjury trap in similar circumstances. If not, said lawyer should be fired. In fact, similar concerns are what caused the previous turnover in Trump's representation.

 

[sglowrider]

 

[Marvin the Martian]

"Truth" is not a simple concept in these matters. Todd seems to think truth is as simple as asking your child if he spilled the milk. Rudy G has it exactly right. Every lawyer would be concerned about a perjury trap in similar circumstances. If not, said lawyer should be fired. In fact, similar concerns are what caused the previous turnover in Trump's representation.

Of course it was Trump who said that only guilty people who have to fear testifying. And Clinton spent hours testifying and never got caught in a perjury trap. Does that make her braver, smarter, or both?

 

[sglowrider]

Of course it was Trump who said that only guilty people who have to fear testifying. And Clinton spent hours testifying and never got caught in a perjury trap. Does that make her braver, smarter, or both?

You had to bring her up didn't you Marv?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

What I've read says there were "at least" three sessions totaling thirty hours. That strikes me as odd. If it's only three, that would be ten hours apiece on average. Sounds more like a grilling, not a voluntary interview. If it's more, then why the "at least three" phrasing. Couldn't they get two or more sources to say there were four or more?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html

Edit to add

Yikes!

Trump Lawyers’ Sudden Realization: They Don’t Know What Don McGahn Told Mueller’s Team

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/us/politics/don-mcgahn-trump-mueller.html

The article set off a scramble on Saturday among Mr. Trump’s lawyers and advisers. The president, sequestered at his private golf club in Bedminster, N.J., solicited opinions from a small group of advisers on the possible repercussions from the article. The president ordered Mr. Giuliani to tell reporters that the article was wrong, but Mr. Giuliani did not go that far in his television appearances.​

Damn, I can’t even sleep 10 hours straight. I can’t imagine being questioned for 10 hours if that’s what happened.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You had to bring her up didn't you Marv?

Hillary is replacing Hitler in Godwin's Law.

Trump should not testify, it would be stupid for him to. I'll extend my normal right to not consider that self-incrimination to him. But I will gleefully point out he, and many of his supporters, do not extend that right to anyone buy him.

 

[Fro]

Hillary is replacing Hitler in Godwin's Law.

Trump should not testify, it would be stupid for him to. I'll extend my normal right to not consider that self-incrimination to him. But I will gleefully point out he, and many of his supporters, do not extend that right to anyone buy him.

Trump is a complete scared chicken and lacks manhood for not talking to Mueller.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Trump is a complete scared chicken and lacks manhood for not talking to Mueller.

True or not, he has that right under our Constitution. I granted that right to people like OJ, I have to give it to the President. A suspect not testifying is not an indication of guilt.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

he, and many of his supporters, do not extend that right to anyone buy him

Wrong, we extended that right to Manafort in just the last week!.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

indication of guilt.

In criminal law, “guilt” is not the opposite of innocent. Guilt is solely a matter of proof. A trial can never establish the innocence of the accused, except in the world of Perry Mason.

Trump’s lawyers are exactly correct. Anything he says can and will be used against him whether or not Trump is guilty in a layman’s view.

 

[UncleMark]

Trump should not testify, it would be stupid for him to. I'll extend my normal right to not consider that self-incrimination to him. But I will gleefully point out he, and many of his supporters, do not extend that right to anyone buy him.

<IANAL>

He can't be indicted per DoJ rules, so "taking the 5th" shouldn't apply. Being forced to admit wrongdoing is different from being forced to place himself in legal jeopardy.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

In criminal law, “guilt” is not the opposite of innocent. Guilt is solely a matter of proof. A trial can never establish the innocence of the accused, except in the world of Perry Mason.

Trump’s lawyers are exactly correct. Anything he says can and will be used against him whether or not Trump is guilty in a layman’s view.

Again, it was Trump who said "if you're innocent, why are you taking the 5th". He is the one that conflated the point. I am saying not testifying is not an indication of guilt. Is that wrong?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Again, it was Trump who said "if you're innocent, why are you taking the 5th". He is the one that conflated the point. I am saying not testifying is not an indication of guilt. Is that wrong?

Of course he said that. That is why Trump and his lawyers have disagreed on this point.

I think your double negative is off. My point is that when a defendant does not testify it means he doesn’t testify. Juries are instructed to not consider that evidence of guilt, but they often do.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Of course he said that. That is why Trump and his lawyers have disagreed on this point.

I think your double negative is off. My point is that when a defendant does not testify it means he doesn’t testify. Juries are instructed to not consider that evidence of guilt, but they often do.

Hmm, I don't think my double negative is off. Testifying or not in no way infers guilt is my point.